1. This criminal petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.92 of 2011 on the file of the II Additional Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Hyderabad.

2. I have heard Sri T.Mahender Rao, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri R.Ramachandra Reddy, the learned Standing Counsel-cum-Special Public Prosecutor for A.C.B. Cases for the respondent/State.

3. The accused is the petitioner. He was charge sheeted for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(2) r/w 13 (1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

4. The short facts leading to filing of the charge sheet are that the petitioner while he was working as Deputy Tahsildar in the office of the Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition Unit, Yellampally, Ramagundam mandal, Karimnagar District, demanded an amount of Rs.20,000/- as bribe for doing official favour viz. handing over of the cheque for an amount of Rs.8,55,626/- which was the compensation amount of the sub-merged lands of an extent of Ac.05-23 guntas belonging to the father of the de facto complainant. It is said that after bargaining, the petitioner reduced the amount to Rs.10,000/- and the de facto complainant who was not willing to pay the bribe, approached the ACB and lodged a report with them. On the strength of the said report, a trap was laid. In the course of the said trap, the petitioner allegedly received the amount of Rs.10,000/- from the de facto complainant. After investigation, the charge sheet was laid against the petitioner alleging commission of offences under Sections 13 (2), 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

5. One of the crucial aspects in this case is that the de facto complainant who is the important witness in the case stated before the Magistrate that while his statement was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. during the course of investigation he stated that the petitioner refused to hand over the cheque on the ground that there was a dispute with regard to the compensation between his father K.Ranga Rao and Katta Anjaiah and paid the awarded amount to the awardee Katta Anjaiah as per the direction of the Special Deputy Collector and therefore, the de facto complainant developed grouse against the petitioner, approached the ACB and got him involved in the false trap after lodging the written report against him with the ACB. He also specially stated in the 164 Cr.P.C. statement that the petitioner, in fact, did not receive the bribe amount from him, but, he forcibly thrusted the amount in to his shirt pocket, he refused to receive, returned the money back to him. This apart, basing on the representation made by the petitioner to the government requesting to reinstate him into service, as he was falsely involved in a trap case by the de facto complainant, whereupon the sanctioning authority perused the entire material and took into consideration the statement made by the de facto complainant under Section 164 Cr.P.C. before the Magistrate, passed an order that prima facie it seems to be a case of foisted trap and the request of the petitioner herein was cogent and logical and accordingly ordered the reinstatement of the petitioner vide Memo No.50925/VIG.VI(2)/07-2, dated 01.07.2008. Subsequently, the government after careful consideration of the aforesaid material decided to order departmental enquiry against the petitioner instead of granting sanction to prosecute the petitioner in a criminal court and accordingly issued the Memo No.50925/VIG.VI(2)/07-2, dated 13.09.2010.

6. Sri T.Mahender Rao, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that initially the government having come to a conclusion that it is a case of foisted trap, ordered only departmental enquiry instead of prosecution of the petitioner in a criminal court, gravely erred in cancelling the earlier order issued in memo No. 50925/VIG.VI (2)/07-2, dated 20.04.2011 accorded sanction for prosecuting the petitioner under Section 19